People forget Ramps averaged 49+ IN Australia and 42 (in the era where 40 meant you were a test class batsman) against them overall.

He was no doubt a test flop overall, but against Australia he did pretty well. He should've turned 3 of the 6 half-centuries into centuries and we'd be looking at an average of 45+ against by far the ebst team of the era.

Terrific team. I wouldn't disagree with any component in it. Yes there's a long tail but there's plenty of batting ahead of it, and it's a bowling attack to strike fear in any Pom who's watched Ashes cricket in the last 20-odd years.

I'm all for having 3 openers as No.1-3 in a line-up and Hutton would be able to do it I'm sure.

Indeed it's worked very well for both teams on plenty of occasions. Never more so than 1970/71 when England had Boycott and Luckhurst opening with Edrich at three. And in 2006/07 there were six left-handed openers in the originally planned top three\four of each (Trescothick, Strauss, Cook; Langer, Hayden, Hussey - though Langer of course isn't actually an opener). In 1989 (and 1990/91) Australia had Marsh and Taylor, with Boon (who was perfectly capable of opening though even better at three) at three; in 1993 and 1994/95 it was Taylor-Slater-Boon. Australia for a fair while had Lawry opening with Simpson\Stackpole, and Redpath (who was a bit of a Boon himself - could do both roles well but slightly best at three) at three. The list goes on.

I'd have more confidence in Hobbs-Sutcliffe-Hutton than any other one-two-three pairing you could come-up with. Including Woodfull-Ponsford-Bradman which was not merely imaginary-down-the-ages but actual at one time.

Aside from the uselessness of multiple-laugh-smiley-exclusive posts... if there is any sensible response there, what's the reaction to Ramprakash for? He was good in his limited appearances in 1993 and 1997, and excellent in 1998/99 and 2001.

People forget Ramps averaged 49+ IN Australia and 42 (in the era where 40 meant you were a test class batsman) against them overall.

He was no doubt a test flop overall, but against Australia he did pretty well. He should've turned 3 of the 6 half-centuries into centuries and we'd be looking at an average of 45+ against by far the ebst team of the era.

His numbers are a fairly misleading. Either he scored in dead rubbers where the Aussies were notorious for taking their foot off the gas or in 1998 away and 2001 at home, he basically hung around while the batsmen at the other end got out.

I know it can be said you can only take the chances you're given but to that, you have to then ask yourself why England refused to pick him before the final Test of his first two Ashes series'. From the chatter at the time, the English selectors didn't rate him either. And upon getting picked for full Ashes series' in 1998 and 2001, he, again, hung around. When the team needed a player to take the game by the scruff of the neck, he......hung around putting the pressure on the guys at the other end to actually do the job. They'd get out trying to do it, he'd sit on his bat at the other end in the midst of the inevitable collapse. Not exactly a team player.

You could plot a graph of 'points when momentum shifted to the opposition' against 'Ramps at the crease' and almost see r = 1 for the correlation. This is why he should be nowhere near any Ashes side. Certainly not one that wants to actually win games.

It's not surprising they didn't rate him in 1993 and 1997, given how diabolical his performances were against other sides (averaged about 14 against teams other than Australia from 1991 to 1995/96). However, if you can find me five England middle-order batsmen in the last 20 years who've done better against Australia than Ramprakash did in 1998/99 and 2001 (whatever the means for his success, fact is he succeeded, and I unlike you couldn't care less whether he used positive or negative play to do so) I'll happily replace him with the one that isn't Hussain, Pietersen, Stewart or Thorpe.

If I was given to stupid multiple-laugh-exclusive posts I might use one here. Russell ahead of Stewart? However disappointing Stewart may have been on some occasions against Australia, he was better than Russell, no questions asked. And Broad (who bashed one joke of an attack in 1986/87) over Atherton (who scored multiple runs against three successive quality attacks in 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95) is simply nonsensical.

As for Tufnell based essentially on a single game (maybe two at a push, the other being SCG 1990/91) that's pretty nonsensical too.

It's not surprising they didn't rate him in 1993 and 1997, given how diabolical his performances were against other sides (averaged about 14 against teams other than Australia from 1991 to 1995/96). However, if you can find me five England middle-order batsmen in the last 20 years who've done better against Australia than Ramprakash did in 1998/99 and 2001 (whatever the means for his success, fact is he succeeded, and I unlike you couldn't care less whether he used positive or negative play to do so) I'll happily replace him with the one that isn't Hussain, Pietersen, Stewart or Thorpe.

Depends on whether you're picking a side with the best numbers or one that'll win.

If I was given to stupid multiple-laugh-exclusive posts I might use one here. Russell ahead of Stewart? However disappointing Stewart may have been on some occasions against Australia, he was better than Russell, no questions asked. And Broad (who bashed one joke of an attack in 1986/87) over Atherton (who scored multiple runs against three successive quality attacks in 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95) is simply nonsensical.

As for Tufnell based essentially on a single game (maybe two at a push, the other being SCG 1990/91) that's pretty nonsensical too.

I thought i'd check the stats to back my opinion on this and was actually surprised that I was right. Russell>>>>>>>Stewart at keeping. In Ashes Russell=Stewart in batting results. If this wasn't based on Ashes, I'd go Stewart. Not Stupid and far more Sensible than Healy>Gilchrist.

Atherton was ordinary, although he did try hard. Broad was a series winner, even if he couldn't back it up.

Tuffnell, well that maybe is nonsensical but who else Giles? Embury? Hemmings? none any better and a fifth paceman would be pointless.

I concede Tufnell, and accuse you of total ignorence in regard to Russell.

thought I'd actually check Atherton's stats to see if they agreed with my impresion of Atherton's ordinariness and was quite shocked at just how diabolical they were.
1 century in 33 matches, with an average under 30. Poor

38.3
Styris to Pietersen, SIX, wow, what a shot, that is awesome...it's a repeat of his six off Muralitharan at Edgbaston, as he switches his grip and reverse-hits Styris over deep cover (or should that be deep square-leg) for a memorable maximum.

Originally Posted by Cricinfo

42.6
Styris to Pietersen, SIX, that's the most extraordinary shot, he switches his grip to that of a left-hander and launches Stryis high over long-off for a might six. That is one of the more incredible shots you'll see